D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[DND_Reborn]

@DND_Reborn I have gone the opposite direction. I used to prefer low magic settings but now I love 5e. D&D magic is not exactly what I would but I am happy with it and happy with high magic fantasy.

Does there have to be a reason? Tastes change over time.
Personally, I've gone the other direction, preferring low-magic settings, and even humans-only settings. But of late, i've found myself more interested in gonzo. I don't think there's any particular reason, except maybe to just scratch an itch that hasn't been scratched much.

While I am happy for you both, and, no, there doesn't have to be a "reason" (which is why I said in the OP I wasn't really expecting "answers" to this...), the post by James in the OP really got me thinking about it.

I mean, spells like Tiny Hut, Goodberry, Teleport, et al. have been a part of D&D for a long time, and I've used them as DM and player in AD&D for a long time--happy to do so! But, for some reason, I feel spells like Teleport should be in tier 4, not tier 2. I feel like casters should get their proficiency bonus in spells per long rest. I feel like magic items should be super rare, and a simple +1 weapon a treasured heirloom.

Here's an example from 2005: my campaign (ran for about 5 years IRL) was winding up. The PCs had established a stronghold in some low mountains. Two of the creatures which lived there were Hill Giants the PCs had spared (from the Against the Giants series). Using their sweat (and other components/spells), the PCs crafted dozens and dozens of Potions of Hill Giant Strength. Enough to give one to every man, woman, and child in the castle complex (about 200 people IIRC). Oh, and every single guard had at least a +1 dagger or arrows, many had better weapons... Cast offs the PCs collected over the years.

Now, however, in 5E, I feel like this would be ridiculous.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

You know, a funny thing, but while I like gonzo powers and spells, I am not a fan of item based powers. No strong objection but I would prefer spells or innate powers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Does it make you enjoy 5e more to not only constantly disparage and complain about it, but to always assume the most cynical of reasons for WotC to make the design decisions they do (which you then pass off as established fact)?

I guess if it enriches your experience, go for it.

I enjoy 5e more when I talk about it to other gamers. There are plenty of things that can be done to improve the experience, imo. Its just that there are lots of people who seem to like things as they are, or as they are going to be. Disagreement is natural.

 

[James Gasik]

D&D has always been a strange beast. At low levels, the game is low magic. But that changes as you reach higher levels of play. Magic becomes more plentiful, and many campaign settings follow suit, with high level spellcasters becoming powerful NPC's who shape them in dramatic ways.

Mystara had an entire nation (Alphatia, I think?) governed by a council of like 100 36th-level archmages. Greyhawk was reshaped by high level magic in both ancient and current times. The Forgotten Realms is lousy with powerful wizards, with Magocracies existing in the past (like Netheril) and the present (Thay, Halruua). Even Krynn had the High Orders of Sorcery who policed who could use arcane magic and how in the setting.

Think of all the things high levels adventures include- ancient dragons, mighty liches, travel to other planes of existence, powerful artifacts, remnants of ancient, advanced civilizations.

These somehow coexist in a game where eating a damn berry instead of a day's rations can cause some DM's a fit.

One of my first 3e games, the DM who had graduated from 2e started the game with us in a desert prison. We had to plan our escape, and the next part was supposed to be a gritty survival game. Little did he realize what my Cleric and our Druid were about to do.

I could farm out Endure Elements to the party and create water. As I leveled, soon I could remove fatigue, and even create food from nothing!

And the DM kind of freaked out about it, griping about the new edition's "power creep", until I pulled out the 2e PHB and showed him that this was nothing new- he'd just never seen it done before, in all the years he'd played.

Of course, there was a good reason for that. I didn't have to prepare nothing but Cure X Wounds spells, since I could turn any spell into healing if need be. Which meant I was free to load up on other interesting spells.

5e makes this even worse, as you can prepare quite a few different spells, and cast them freely.

So it's not that the game has gotten more magical, but that players are more free to actually look at their spell list, and prepare some niche utility spells they might not have back in AD&D.

Now I will grant, some spells have gotten stronger. I'm not sure why Tiny Hut is now a mobile fortress. Back in the day, I'd use Shrink Item to carry around a wooden house when we needed to camp, now all I need is a level 3 spell slot!

I won't defend abuse of Tiny Hut, but when people say that "using a rope trick to get a short rest whenever you want one is deserving of a TPK", that gets an eyebrow raise from me.

The spells were deliberately put into 5e. There's no way around that fact. This is the game, working as intended.

I don't mind if someone wants to run a low magic gritty game, but 5e wasn't designed with that sort of gaming past the first few levels.

Honestly, looking back at earlier versions of D&D, I don't think any edition was- it was simply that the game was broken up into tiers of play, and the lower tiers could be pretty harsh. You were intended to level past that, but how many games really did?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Really all that's needed to make it grittier and lower magic is a different set of classes. None of the rules or monsters have to change.

 

[ECMO3]

So, this post by @James Gasik really hit home and got me thinking about something...


For some reason (I really cannot tell you why!) the last few years I've been playing 5E I've desired a "low-magic" style setting/game. I have been all of keeping it more mundane, heroic but not "superheroic", keeping magic and magical items rare, making the game gritty with easier death and harder recovery.

And I don't know WHY I have felt this way...

I began decades ago with B/X and AD&D and I was perfectly happy up to 3rd edition with flying wizards, teleportation, and similar magic mention in the quote above. I never had any problem with mighty magic weapons and regions of mystical mysteries lost for ages, where strange and unusual were common occurrences.

But, for some unknown reason, in 5E I don't seem to want it anymore, while it is part of the game (as James says...) and has been for years.

So, I am not seeking answers, but if anyone has thoughts or wants to discuss it, please let me know. It would be nice if I could find a reason why...

I think the desire for low magic is a niche. I think it exists, but I think it is a small minority of players that want that and is exceeded by those that actually want the opposite - more magic and better magic.

If you look at recent publications, the game is moving towards being more magical, not less. Strixhaven added magic to backgrounds (as well as an entire setting that revolved around magic), TCE and XGE made Rangers far more magical while also adding more powerful spells and new magic-themed subclasses to just about every martial. For the most part those three rulebooks are popular received great reviews and are widely used.

Meanwhile many of the low-magic power boosting options from the DMG are completely unused at most tables. The DMG has rules for disarming enemies, marking enemies and getting extra AOOs, gritty realism in resting, facing and lingering injuries from attacks. The DMG also has an optional rule for hero points that tends to favor martials. Few tables use these options even though they boost non-magic oriented gameplay and are RAW in the same fashion that feats are.

By comparison many, many tables ignore somatic and material component rules even though there are not optional rules for this (that I am aware of). So tables are willing to break RAW/RAI to the benefit of spellcasters and magic but they are not willing to use optional rules to benefit non-casters.

Finally I think you will see this on roll20 and startplaying games. If you advertise a "low magic" campaign you will get a lot less attention than one that isn't/

 

[James Gasik]

There's a little bit of prejudice against low magic campaigns as well, I've noticed. You say "low magic" and for some people, it conjures visions of super gritty games where you have lethal encounters with ordinary rats and upon slaying them, have to fight each other for a dented copper piece, lol.

 

[Campbell]

There are two different issues from my perspective. There's the cool long lasting effects that have pretty much been nerfed to ground so magic has no real permanence to it. Then there are the lame nope buttons that obviate stuff with no real chance of failure. The first we should embrace and not lose. The no you don't buttons should be shot into outer space.

In general we make the wrong choices on this stuff. By nerfing wizards instead of making fighters more awesome we create a stale game environment where players don't get any access to setting altering stuff.

 

[Cadence]

I think the desire for low magic is a niche. I think it exists, but I think it is a small minority of players that want that and is exceeded by those that actually want the opposite - more magic and better magic.

If you look at recent publications, the game is moving towards being more magical, not less. Strixhaven added magic to backgrounds (as well as an entire setting that revolved around magic), TCE and XGE made Rangers far more magical while also adding more powerful spells and new magic-themed subclasses to just about every martial. For the most part those three rulebooks are popular received great reviews and are widely used.

Meanwhile many of the low-magic power boosting options from the DMG are completely unused at most tables. The DMG has rules for disarming enemies, marking enemies and getting extra AOOs, gritty realism in resting, facing and lingering injuries from attacks. The DMG also has an optional rule for hero points that tends to favor martials. Few tables use these options even though they boost non-magic oriented gameplay and are RAW in the same fashion that feats are.

By comparison many, many tables ignore somatic and material component rules even though there are not optional rules for this (that I am aware of). So tables are willing to break RAW/RAI to the benefit of spellcasters and magic but they are not willing to use optional rules to benefit non-casters.

Finally I think you will see this on roll20 and startplaying games. If you advertise a "low magic" campaign you will get a lot less attention than one that isn't/

What percent play the highest tier games where the most magic is?

----

I wonder if a lot of options are avoided simply because a lot of tables go for simplicity over complexity?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

End result: magic has gone from being extra to being expected; and thus from exciting to ho-hum.

Whereas I would say magic has gone from "technically optional but practically required" to "technically avoidable but practically everywhere," and that it is very specifically the second half of the first statement which inevitably led to the second statement coming about.

The fact that 5e specifically chose to avoid including a popular, if controversial, non-magical class certainly didn't help matters...nor the fact that it enforced outright spellcasting on classes that had actually had their spellcasting reduced or eliminated in the previous edition!

When "fire lots of arrows" has been turned into a spell rather than a thing a mundane person can just do with training, it's not just "magic has taken over." It is also "even mundane things are being treated as if they were magical."

Magic has become both more widespread and more watered down.